Trekstor SurfTab duo W3 Convertible Review
For the original German review, see here.
Trekstor's SurfTab duo W3 is an 11.6-inch convertible - to be more precise it is a member of the detachable subcategory, i.e. a convertible with a detachable display. Or seen the other way around: a tablet with connectable keyboard. An Atom processor from the Cherry Trail generation operates inside the device. The convertible finds rivals in devices like Medion's Akoya E2215T, Lenovo's IdeaPad MIIX 310-10ICR, and HP's x360 310 G1.
Case and Connectivity
The relatively low purchase price does not involve forsaking high-quality materials. The tablet part's back and the keyboard dock's upper side are made of aluminum. The other components are made from plastic. The convertible's build is not conspicuous. Its build is solid, and the device does not exhibit any weaknesses in terms of stability.
The interface diversity has to be criticized here. Trekstor installs one micro-USB 2.0 and one micro-USB 3.0 into the tablet. The USB charger is connected to the first. The second port is intended for connecting USB devices. Trekstor includes an adapter (micro-USB 3.0-to-Type A slot). We deem both micro-USB ports as illogical. Trekstor should have installed Type-C USB ports to begin with. This would have led to the same result and the tablet would have been future-proof at least in this regard.
Trekstor's USB 3.0 solution is not convincing, either. A stable connection cannot be set up between the included adapter and micro-USB 3.0 port. The slightest movement or touching the adapter could interrupt the convertible's contact to the connected device - for example, a USB hard drive.
Trekstor furnishes the SurfTab with the 32-bit version of Windows 10 Home. This version is easier on resources and is therefore often used in low-performance devices. Thus, no 64-bit applications can be executed. This is not a problem as almost every application has a 32-bit version.
Input Devices
The keyboard dock provides an unlit chiclet keyboard. The flat, lightly roughened keys have a short drop and defined pressure point. The keys' resistance is satisfactory. The keyboard at most yields marginally when typing on it. This was not annoying. The dock's metal upper side apparently pays off here. In total, Trekstor delivers a surprisingly decent keyboard. Even a small, multi-touch ClickPad has found a place in the keyboard dock (approx. 8.2 x 4.6 cm). The pad's sleek surface does not stop the fingers from gliding over it. It has a short drop and clear pressure point.
The touchscreen supports 10 touch points. We did not experience any problems with it, and it responded instantaneously to inputs. It can be used with fingers and with an active stylus. We successfully tested the latter with a stylus by Hama.
Display
The SurfTab's 11.6-inch touchscreen has a native resolution of 1920x1080 pixels. The panel offers a good contrast (1028:1) alongside an only poor brightness (235.2 cd/m²). Good: The screen never displayed PWM-flickering.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 80 %
Center on Battery: 212 cd/m²
Contrast: 1028:1 (Black: 0.25 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 7.98 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.89
ΔE Greyscale 7.87 | 0.5-98 Ø5.1
84% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
55% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
61.3% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
83.9% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
63% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.3
| Trekstor SurfTab duo W3 IPS, 1920x1080, 11.6" | Medion Akoya E2215T IPS, 1920x1080, 11.6" | HP x360 310 G1 TN, 1366x768, 11.6" | Acer Switch V 10 SW5-017-196Q IPS, 1280x800, 10.1" | HP x2 210 G1 IPS, 1280x800, 10.1" | Lenovo IdeaPad MIIX 310-10ICR IPS, 1280x800, 10.1" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -19% | -37% | -13% | -28% | -14% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 63 | 48.12 -24% | 37.47 -41% | 52.5 -17% | 42.77 -32% | 51.1 -19% |
| sRGB Coverage | 83.9 | 71.7 -15% | 56.4 -33% | 76.3 -9% | 63.7 -24% | 75.2 -10% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 61.3 | 49.78 -19% | 38.71 -37% | 54.1 -12% | 44.22 -28% | 52.7 -14% |
| Response Times | -7% | -21% | -2% | -21% | -5% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 37 ? | 31 ? 16% | 43 ? -16% | 29 ? 22% | 43 ? -16% | 31.6 ? 15% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 20 ? | 26 ? -30% | 25 ? -25% | 25 ? -25% | 25 ? -25% | 24.8 ? -24% |
| PWM Frequency | 50 ? | 396 ? | 877 ? | 50 ? | 69.4 | |
| Screen | 9% | -59% | 16% | 8% | -4% | |
| Brightness middle | 257 | 338 32% | 199 -23% | 270 5% | 313 22% | 251.9 -2% |
| Brightness | 235 | 309 31% | 186 -21% | 239 2% | 295 26% | 233 -1% |
| Brightness Distribution | 80 | 76 -5% | 76 -5% | 82 3% | 84 5% | 83 4% |
| Black Level * | 0.25 | 0.39 -56% | 0.8 -220% | 0.21 16% | 0.21 16% | 0.348 -39% |
| Contrast | 1028 | 867 -16% | 249 -76% | 1286 25% | 1490 45% | 724 -30% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 7.98 | 3.94 51% | 11.92 -49% | 3.01 62% | 6.79 15% | 6.35 20% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 12.25 | 9.96 19% | 20.52 -68% | 4.63 62% | 14.11 -15% | 11.15 9% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 7.87 | 2.54 68% | 12.92 -64% | 7.66 3% | 6.78 14% | 7.09 10% |
| Gamma | 2.3 96% | 2.38 92% | 2.04 108% | 1.45 152% | 2.26 97% | 2.02 109% |
| CCT | 8815 74% | 6902 94% | 13589 48% | 6665 98% | 6708 97% | 8590 76% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 55 | 46 -16% | 36 -35% | 49 -11% | 41 -25% | 52.69 -4% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 84 | 71 -15% | 56 -33% | 76 -10% | 63 -25% | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -6% /
1% | -39% /
-50% | 0% /
8% | -14% /
-3% | -8% /
-6% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected | ||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8564 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | ||
The panel has a DeltaE 2000 color shift of 7.98 in delivery state. A rate less than 3 would be desirable. The screen exhibits a slight bluish tint.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 20 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 14 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 40 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (20.8 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 37 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 16 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 21 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 50 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.6 ms). | ||
Trekstor furnishes the SurfTab with a viewing-angle stable IPS panel. Thus, the screen is legible from every position. The convertible is not really outdoor-suitable. The panel's reflective surface and low brightness are noticed here. The latter is even a bit lower in battery mode than in AC mode.
Performance
Trekstor's SurfTab duo W3 is an 11.6-inch convertible that is suitable for working with simple office and Internet applications. The device is currently priced at approximately 230 to 250 Euros (~$245 to ~$267). Other configurations do not exist.
Processor
Intel's Atom (Cherry Trail) quad-core processor is inside the device. The CPU is designed for simple office and Internet applications. Thanks to its low TDP (less than 4 watts), the SoC can be cooled passively, and this is also implemented. The Atom clocks at a base speed of 1.44 GHz, which can be boosted up to 1.84 GHz via Turbo. Turbo is utilized in both AC and battery modes. The multithread tests that we performed were performed at 1.6 GHz, and the single-thread tests at 1.6 to 1.84 GHz.
| Cinebench R10 | |
| Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit | |
| Acer Switch V 10 SW5-017-196Q | |
| Trekstor SurfTab duo W3 | |
| Medion Akoya E2215T | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad MIIX 310-10ICR | |
| HP x2 210 G1 | |
| Rendering Single 32Bit | |
| Acer Switch V 10 SW5-017-196Q | |
| Trekstor SurfTab duo W3 | |
| Medion Akoya E2215T | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad MIIX 310-10ICR | |
| HP x2 210 G1 | |
| Geekbench 3 | |
| 32 Bit Single-Core Score | |
| Acer Switch V 10 SW5-017-196Q | |
| Trekstor SurfTab duo W3 | |
| Medion Akoya E2215T | |
| 32 Bit Multi-Core Score | |
| Acer Switch V 10 SW5-017-196Q | |
| Trekstor SurfTab duo W3 | |
| Medion Akoya E2215T | |
| Sunspider - 1.0 Total Score | |
| HP x2 210 G1 | |
| Trekstor SurfTab duo W3 | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Acer Switch V 10 SW5-017-196Q | |
| HP x2 210 G1 | |
| Medion Akoya E2215T | |
| Trekstor SurfTab duo W3 | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad MIIX 310-10ICR | |
| Trekstor SurfTab duo W3 | |
| Medion Akoya E2215T | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Medion Akoya E2215T | |
| Trekstor SurfTab duo W3 | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad MIIX 310-10ICR | |
* ... smaller is better
System Performance
The convertible does the jobs that it has been made for smoothly. The computing power of the installed SoC suffices for basic office and Internet applications. The SoC's low performance is evident when opening websites that are loaded with advertisements. The convertible needs a while here. A look at our comparison chart shows that the SurfTab and Medion's Akoya E2215T clearly lag behind the competition. However, it would be wrong to assume that the processors in the devices clock at a much lower speed. Both devices are furnished with the 32-bit version of Windows 10. The other convertibles come with the 64-bit version. The outcomes reflect this.
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 1246 points | |
Help | ||
| PCMark 8 - Home Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Acer Switch V 10 SW5-017-196Q | |
| HP x360 310 G1 | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad MIIX 310-10ICR | |
| HP x2 210 G1 | |
| Medion Akoya E2215T | |
| Trekstor SurfTab duo W3 | |
Storage Device
An eMMC module with a capacity of 32 GB is installed for storing data. Roughly 18 GB can be used freely. The storage device's transfer rates are on a normal level for an eMMC storage device. The storage capacity can be expanded via a micro-SD card.
| Trekstor SurfTab duo W3 32 GB eMMC Flash | Medion Akoya E2215T 64 GB eMMC Flash | HP x360 310 G1 Toshiba MQ01ABF050 | Acer Switch V 10 SW5-017-196Q 64 GB eMMC Flash | HP x2 210 G1 64 GB eMMC Flash | Lenovo IdeaPad MIIX 310-10ICR 64 GB eMMC Flash | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | 157% | -25% | 475% | 241% | 266% | |
| Read Seq | 142.8 | 169.6 19% | 99.5 -30% | 153.9 8% | 134.1 -6% | 151.9 6% |
| Write Seq | 44.24 | 39.77 -10% | 102.9 133% | 101.1 129% | 66.1 49% | 87.3 97% |
| Read 512 | 125.4 | 155.3 24% | 34.45 -73% | 136.2 9% | 112.9 -10% | 144.5 15% |
| Write 512 | 16.9 | 27.45 62% | 42.7 153% | 91.5 441% | 57.7 241% | 58 243% |
| Read 4k | 7.82 | 13.09 67% | 0.439 -94% | 12.58 61% | 15.79 102% | 9.35 20% |
| Write 4k | 1.423 | 7.915 456% | 0.013 -99% | 12.38 770% | 10.06 607% | 12.26 762% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 11.04 | 15.11 37% | 0.851 -92% | 23.81 116% | 35.31 220% | 29 163% |
| Write 4k QD32 | 1.435 | 10.05 600% | 0.033 -98% | 33.93 2264% | 11.84 725% | 13.18 818% |
Graphics Card
Intel's HD Graphics from the Cherry Trail generation is responsible for video output. It supports DirectX 12 and clocks at speeds of up to 500 MHz. The 3DMark benchmark outcomes range on a normal level for this GPU.
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 322 points | |
Help | ||
| 3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU | |
| Acer Switch V 10 SW5-017-196Q | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad MIIX 310-10ICR | |
| Medion Akoya E2215T | |
| Trekstor SurfTab duo W3 | |
| HP x2 210 G1 | |
| HP x360 310 G1 | |
Gaming Performance
The SurfTab's hardware is much too weak for games like FIFA 17. However, many casual games that can be played on the convertible are found in the Windows Store.
| low | med. | high | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trackmania Nations Forever (2008) | 92.6 | 21.3 | 9.6 |
Emissions and Energy Management
System Noise
The convertible is cooled passively, and thus there is no noise-making fan. However, the tablet part occasionally produces an electronic sizzling noise.
Temperature
The convertible performed our stress test (Prime95 and Furmark run for at least one hour) in the same manner in AC and battery modes. The processor clocks at 480 GHz. The graphics unit starts at 400 MHz at the beginning of the test and throttles its speed to 200 MHz after five minutes. The device does not get excessively hot. The temperatures remained below 40 °C on all measuring points during the stress test.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 37.6 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 19.6 to 60 °C for the class Convertible.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 37.8 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.6 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 30.3 °C / 87 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 31.6 °C / 88.9 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28 °C / 82.4 F (-3.6 °C / -6.5 F).
Speakers
The stereo speakers are situated on the tablet part's left. They produce a thin sound that hardly reproduces any bass. Headphones or external speakers have to be connected for a better sound experience.
Trekstor SurfTab duo W3 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (78 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 31.3% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (2.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 7.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (14.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (33.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 92% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 6% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 21%, worst was 57%
Compared to all devices tested
» 91% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 7% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (10.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 4% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
Frequency diagram in comparison (checkboxes above can be turned on/off)
Power Consumption
No irregularities were discovered in terms of power consumption. The energy requirement was on a normal level for this hardware platform over the entire load range. The USB charger has a nominal output of 10 watts.
| Off / Standby |   0.7 / 2.8 Watt |
| Idle |  2 / 2.2 / 2.7 Watt |
| Load |
8.5 / 8.4 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
Battery Runtime
Our practical Wi-Fi test simulates the load needed for opening websites. The "Balanced" profile is enabled, the energy-saving features are disabled, and the screen's brightness is set to approximately 150 cd/m². The SurfTab achieves a runtime of 4:54 hours - a poor outcome. We expect a minimum runtime of 7 to 8 hours from a device like the SurfTab.
The short runtime is due to the battery. It has a capacity of just 8.2 Wh. The competition has three to four times as much. The battery needs almost 5 hours to be recharged from 0 to 100% when the device is shut down. It does not supply the convertible with power, i.e. as soon as the battery is recharged the device begins to discharge again. The battery is depleted to 95% after approximately 30 minutes (idle, maximum screen brightness). It recharges when the charger is still connected.
| Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing | |
| HP x360 310 G1 | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad MIIX 310-10ICR | |
| HP x2 210 G1 | |
| Acer Switch V 10 SW5-017-196Q | |
| Medion Akoya E2215T | |
| Trekstor SurfTab duo W3 | |
Pros
Cons
Verdict
Trekstor's SurfTab duo W3 is an 11.6-inch Windows convertible that is made for basic office and Internet applications. The device hardly heats up and runs noiselessly. However, an electronic sizzling noise from inside is sometimes audible. The device does not have an excessive amount of storage capacity. 17.6 GB of the 32 GB storage can be used. However, only a maximum of 7 GB should be used as Windows 10 needs 10 GB of free storage for big system updates. Thus, inserting a micro-SD card is recommendable.
The keyboard dock makes an overall decent impression. The keyboard is even suitable for more frequent typing sessions. Trekstor might have an affordable typewriter and browsing machine for pupils and students in its lineup here. Unfortunately, the SurfTab displays weakness in a crucial section: the battery life. The convertible only achieves a runtime of just below 5 hours in our Wi-Fi test - that is too short for a day at school or university. On the other hand, the screen pleases with stable viewing angles and good contrast, but the brightness is too low.
An affordable 11.6-inch convertible for home use is available with Trekstor's SurfTab duo W3.
However, Trekstor allows itself to make missteps that should not occur even at this low price. First to be mentioned is the unreliable micro-USB 3.0 port that cannot ensure a stable connection. The manufacturer should have relied on Type-C USB right from the outset. Trekstor would have to include an adapter in any case. Furthermore, recharging the battery takes too long.
Trekstor SurfTab duo W3
- 01/27/2017 v6 (old)
Sascha Mölck
Price comparison
